People see me claiming that special relativity and the Big Bang theory are really cults and bad science. Well I think thats about right in 2009. Yet they were by no means equally unfounded and crazed. Special relativity ought never have been thought of as a theory which explained how the Universe really is. But I think it was (WAS!!!) very good in many ways. So good in fact that if it was 1905 all over again, I would have invented an whole new paradigm category for it.

Special Relativity ought have been accorded a lesser paradigm status. Not so much the leading paradigm. But rather the leading research template. Such a “good” theory in some ways, which seemed to take in all things known and unknown, put them all through some sort of shredder and reorganiser. And when all was said and done fitted the data pretty nicely. At least the data that was accessible back then.

The Big Bang was always crap, will always BE crap and is never going to be anything else. I’m not angry at the religious impulse that started it. But rather more at the secular dead-heads that keep it going now. ((((If one is to be an atheist one must be worthy of it. This is not for everyone in my view.))))) On the other hand you really would have to be a bit of a sucker by 2009, not to have woken up to the unreality that is special relativity.

In any case, here I discuss the idea of a “Leading Research Template.” which is partly a way of getting an honest scientist off the hook, if a part of a very good theory doesn’t sit well with him. We don’t need believers. We just need honest researchers, who can tell good from bad theory, and get on with the job.

But first up is an extended discussion on the use of the word “honesty” in some of my comments below and above.

It ought to be realised that I will one day likely take after some sort of political office in a serious way. I’m not implying below any massive virtues of honesty in the more general sense because in principal I would lie until my face fell off to protect the privacy of my friends and even myself I suppose. I’d likely kick up a storm of lies and nonsense if I got angry enough but I’m not making claims that this has ever happened yet.

None of this is what we are talking about here when it comes to scientific speculation. “Intellectual honesty” doesn’t quite nail it either. “Obsessive Hair-Splitting Motivated By Benevolence?” probably something entirely other. Its a far more narrow laser-like quality. It may be a form of persistence and I don’t know whether its necessarily good. It may be a shabby thing akin to your tongue, seeking out tooth decay, and never leaving it alone. And just not letting it go.

And while in the normal course of everyday life we think of people as being basically honest or otherwise, this quality I’m talking about does not seem to afford itself, of a yay or nay judgement.

You can have more of it. Reisman has it in spades. Codevilla too. You can have a great deal of it. And then you can have more of it again. I know I should use a better word. There must be a better word for this in another language. You see with THIS form of narrow, almost stylised, speculative “HONESTY” one fellow can be fully honest and then the next bloke can be ten times more “honest” yet again.

I aint going to lie to you (right now) and pretend I’ve nailed down what I’m trying to communicate here. But if one day I can express myself more clearly its possible that you could be amongst the first to know.

Perhaps in this sense we might say that Hemmingway had the quality of “honest prose” even if some folks, vexatious or otherwise, may have claimed he was a bullshitartist cold sober. I realise I’m coming pretty close to the reification, concept-stealing and sloppy definitions that I’m critical about in others. But there you are. Something to correct down the track.

Here are some comments, heavily modified, (moreso as time goes on no doubt) taken from a discussion on youtube:

You idiot. You mean to say you studied it and didn’t notice that it was very weak theory? You are right I didn’t study it. But I’d like to think that if I did I would have noticed how weak it is.

Lets just put aside New Matter Creation, and conversion from the less interacting prime matter. Just put these concepts on the shelf for awhile. Because this is a sticking point with a lot of you. And well FAIR ENOUGH. If you are stuck on that well ok. I’m not going to diss you for being stuck on.

…. for being stuck on mass creation and conversion. But the key to sound scientific thought is HONESTY. Brains helps. But honesty will see the persistent thinker through.

A lot of you have been stooged by the Big Bang Cult. So I don’t expect the idea of new mass creation/conversion to sit all that well with many people. Thats not something I’m going to blast you for. I’ll beat you about for other things.

But putting that aside, surely you can own up to admitting that neals theory FITS. And Plate Tectonics does not.

In which case, if you just simply couldn’t get past new mass c/c….

..past new mass c/c then you would relegate neals model to THE LEADING PREDICTIVE TEMPLATE. You don’t have to think of it as the revealed truth but an honest scientist has to allow, that neals theory ought to be the leading predictive template AND THE BASIS OF MOST NEW RESEARCH IN RELEVANT CONNECTED AREAS.

I’ve started looking around the PT explanations. Why am I not seeing force vectors everywhere? Thats not good enough!

Think of a moving continent as an arctic icebreaker (a ship). And think of the sea floor as the ice the icebreaker forces

as the ice the icebreaker forces its way through. Now with the icebreaker we can see the force application in our minds eye. We see the cracking ice and the churning water behind that big boats propellers.

I’m not seeing any sort of analysis like this with the Plate Tectonics crowd. Perhaps I’ve been unlucky in this regard. So if you guys cannot get around the new mass creation/conversion side of things thats alright. But an honest thinker would then realise that far from having ONE PARADIGM TOO MANY to deal with THEY ARE SHY AN UNKNOWN PARADIGM.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? EVERYTHING IS MOVING? THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN. THE SUN AROUND THE SPIRAL ARMS OF THE GALAXY. NEW MASS FORCING CONTINENTS APART. THE EARTH REVOLVING DAILY. OF COURSE THEY ARE MOVING. IN EVERY SENSE. PLATE TECTONICS CANNOT EXPLAIN THIS.

Thats not the way to look at it. The new matter starts at the centre. So you get an outward push like when blowing up a balloon. But since inland is almost never the weakest part of the surface the tear marks, rips and and rifting will happen elsewhere. The continents are just less prone to ripping. Like if someone taped hose to your mouth whit the end down deep in your stomach. And it was turned on too fast for all the water to come out of your nose. Which part of you is going to rip open first? Who knows? The weakest part right. But the weakest part is seldom going to be inland.

o/T – Four planets in our solar system are warming. One AGW believes that the Mayan 2012 theory. Despite they keep displaying the Aztec calendar not the Mayan LOL However these planets have no oceans or oxygen.
So this alleged warming is universal and as far as I know no humans inhabit those planets, yet LOL.

Can you answer this Graeme. Oxygen in flammable, CO2 isn’t. Once the earth had no oxygen. Gonawana land and the other land mass had plants in fact dinosaur bones have been found
in the Artic circle regions.

All this means is collision of tectonic plates causes earthquakes. Australia is lucky we are
part of the Australasian plate. But we do have
hot spots and volcanic activity the latter mainly
off shores. Bar some in SA, Vic and Queensland. And on Australian Herd island Big Ben is still smoking.

An undersea volcano is forming 100 kms off the Victorian coast. (If that erupts, can we expect some fireworks and tsunamies?

Well if four planets are warming doesn’t that prove that any warming on Earth isn’t due to AGW. And tectonic moving plates, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes means this planet is still forming.

I cannot buy it Bush Bunny-Honey. Because when I ask these people who support the theory they cannot direct me to a place that can give me a schematic diagram of how this could be possible. What force vectors would do the job. Where are the forces coming from to move the continent in that way.

It looks a lot more to me like the planet is growing via stretch-marks. At the centre the new matter blows the earth up like a balloon. But by the time these forces get to the surface, then you can get great variability at the surface because of the great disparities of how strong the upper layer of earth is.

Naturally enough most of the volcanic action is in the deep ocean. And if you look at the volcanic action in the deep sea it goes around the earth like the seam of a baseball. The entire thing much more akin to growth via new matter creation, then anything the tectonic plates people have on the fly.

When I put them under the harsh lights and blow smoke in their face they are just way short of good answers.

“Can you answer this Graeme. Oxygen in flammable, CO2 isn’t. Once the earth had no oxygen. Gonawana land and the other land mass had plants in fact dinosaur bones have been found
in the Artic circle regions.”

I can but not with total certainty. I’m not ruling out the axis of the earth tilting due to various disasters. But even aside from that, before 39 million years ago and for a long time prior to that we were in the hothouse world. With almost no ice anywhere on earth.

I’ll give you a bit of a background but the clincher… the key most important thing comes last.

The idiots of AGW always talk about an instantaneous radiative heat balance when in reality their are cumulative effects.

Not all our energy coming from the sun comes via the heat energy on the suns surface. A great deal of it may is coming from electrical energy transfer, between the sun and the earth. But this goes against the grain of the nuclear fusion only view of the sun. Which is a wrong view. But thats not the clincher.

THE CLINCHER is what part of the galaxy you are in and what that means for the bombardment of “cosmic rays”. This is a drastically more important factor then anything on a wet planet.

Since if you have a dearth of cosmic rays on a wet planet, where the tropical zones are, the story of evaporation turns from being the ultimate refrigerant to being the heat par excellence. Because in the tropical zone you have a situation of the newly evaporated water losing its situation of what I would call “special buoyancy”.

You see when you have a situation where the water vapour saturated parcel of air comes off the ocean, and its quickly at mid-troposphere, then thats refrigeration.

But when you have a situation where a new parcel of water vapour saturated air rises up to meet other air already saturated with water vapour then there is no especially buoyant status to the new stuff. So the refrigeration effect is lost. And the water vapour just hangs there in low troposphere, grabbing, scattering and absorbing light from both above and below.

And its a big heater because if it cools a bit then at a microscopic level the vapour molecules will condense enough to give off latent heat and on average this will drop, the liquid being a thousand times heavier then air. But this will not last. Absorbing energy from above and below but without the special buoyancy to rise up to mid-troposphere it will just hand down low phase-changing and keeping things hot like Singapore till the late early morning.

The thing is its a night and day difference. Its either water vapour as the ultimate refrigerant and without buoyancy water vapour as the ultimate greenhouse gas. And the difference can come down to the cosmic rays. Because if there isn’t enough of them to cause rain then the tropical areas (those areas lacking in “special buoyancy” will just spread. Until such time as the tropical zones pretty much engulf the planet entire.

Its the switch from evaporation being the great refrigerant to evaporation meaning a constant humidity, round the clock ….. thats the night and day difference that the dearth of cosmic rays can cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now on top of having so much water vapour that newly evaporated stuff lacks buoyancy there is the question of air pressure. Stupidtown never talks about air pressure. But air pressure is really the big determinant of temperature for any level of solar activity. But I would contend that this water vapour overload that the lack of cosmic rays leads to would start increasing our air pressure. Because you would have this buildup of water vapour. And when it got so much that it was getting into the stratosphere that would be more air pressure right there. But more again because the UV would separate the H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Some of the Hydrogen would subsequently be lost. The net effect being a buildup in oxygen, and therefore eventually more air pressure.

So you see once you have that lack of cosmic rays then you have this knock-on effect. Can melt every last bit of ice on the entire globe. First through the expansion of the tropical zones and then through the increase in air pressure. But I would want to find out all about this to see if the empirical evidence is backing up everything I say here. Because one thing thats hard to find out about is air content and air pressure.